Judeo Christian Foundation to America's Social Justice

David Hethcock’s editorial from April 18th on the state of the Bible skims the surface of the hotly debated topic regarding the nature of America’s Judeo-Christian political philosophy. He refers to the Fox News article which discusses the implications of American’s lackadaisical usage of the Bible, usage which is limited to theory versus real life application. His point is that American’s hold the Bible in increasingly low regard. Though it sits on the vast majority of American bookshelves, there it remains, unused. As the owner of a 1592 Geneva Bible (lucky man!), the fact that mere ownership at one time entailed a potential death sentence begs his question “Would we own the Bible if that were the case today?” However worthwhile the query may be, I nonetheless think that Mr. Hethcock is missing the more pertinent discussion regarding the relationship between America’s version of liberty and the Judeo-Christian principles on which it is built.

This is significant  because there is a social justice movement in the US which would replace the concept of liberty and equal opportunity (as it is constitutionally espoused), with liberty based on equalized outcomes, a fundamentally different approach. The chasm here is tremendous and so the opinion Mr. Hethcock renders needs more attention.

To summarize, Judeo Christian values in American government honor God as the author of life, liberty and happiness. It is this relationship to God that is most fundamental to the social justice worked out in our Constitution. The necessary separation between church and state was intended to allow reason and common sense to prevail over secular or religious influences coming out of Old World traditions. Though church was separated from state, God was not. Indeed, God was specifically named as the creator of our rights. In addition, His inclusion in the documents and laws that are at the heart of our Constitutional government were intended to provide a Biblical morality that would prevent tyranny and encourage justice. Thus this Biblical morality and acknowledgement of God in our founding documents effectively combined with astute political reasoning and common sense are uniquely American and are very much a part of our government.

This is evidenced by John Quincy Adams statement “The Declaration of Independence laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity." Also, the signers of the 1783 Treaty of Paris ending the Revolutionary War, required that the treaty start with the statement, "In the name of the most holy and undivided Trinity”. In addition in Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States (1892), the Supreme Court ruled, simply, that America is a "Christian nation."

Many argue against this relationship. These arguments provide an important thread to theories of social justice that are in favor of a redistribution of wealth, a key element of ongoing political debate. They argue that the early Christian church advocated this redistribution by asking members to place their goods into the hands of the church in order to redistribute wealth on behalf of the poor, but this justification is faulty. It is necessary to first consider the nature of leadership in the Biblical church, initially that of Jesus Christ, a perfect man, and the apostles, many of whom were personally school by Him. The point is then made when one considers the nature of leadership in our current government. That wealth could be redistributed to mutually benefit the rich and the poor requires inspired leadership that is morally capable of such a responsibility. This alone defies the reach of government per se.

Mr. Hethcock mentions the use of “In God We Trust” on our coins as a recent trend that does not necessarily demonstrate a Judeo-Christian tradition in our founding laws and documents. However, I would venture to say that this is incorrect. The phrase has been used sporadically on money coined as early as 1864 and as recently as 1957. It is significant that the clause became our national motto, engraved on the wall before which the Speaker of the House stands. Its use came about as an acknowledgement by a joint Congress after WWII wherein God was being recognized as the nation’s source of success in the war, not US weapons or economic strength.

I realize that Mr. Hethcock is not necessarily disputing any of these points, and probably supports them. However, the fact that he did not make use of them as they were inferred in his source article does little to convey the importance of American’s use of Biblical morality and their understanding of its influence in our government.

 http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/04/18/state-bible-2012/#ixzz1t45ooPkh
http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/cherry/080128
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2009/05/07/obama-is-wrong-when-he-says-were-not-a-judeo-christian-nation
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/judeo-christian-principles-and-socialism/
http://www.fredsauermatrix.com/64-Can-JudeoChristian-Principles,-Values-and-Ethics-Survive-Obama-Care.html

Capital Punishment: A Question of Justice or a Question of Competency?

Convicted Ohio murderer Mark Wiles recently dropped his last appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court and has been scheduled to die by lethal injection. David Alan Gore, a Florida convicted rapist and murderer, spent 28 years on death row before his final appeal was overturned and he was executed last week. In January, Texas convicted murderer Rodrigo Hernandez was also executed after his final Supreme Court appeal was rejected.

Headline news reminds us of the reality of capital punishment in the United States and subsequent and ongoing debate forces us to consider its implications, however abhorrent they may be.

Ohio is one of 38 states that impose the death sentence on capital crimes. Texas, which has a high crime rate and an ongoing problem with overcrowded prisons, has had the highest percentage of executions since the Supreme Court lifted its ban in 1976. Of the 1264 executions in the United States, 447 occurred in Texas.

Most of these inmates were convicted based on irrefutable evidence that was substantiated by DNA testing, and their crimes were so cruel that few argue against the justification of their sentencing. However, there are others who are sitting on death row in front of a gnawing backdrop of innocence that beg the question regarding capital punishment.

Many of those questions are moral in nature, and involve the right a state has to kill an individual. Opposing views pertain to the freedom individuals have in making moral choices (to commit a crime) which control their destiny, whether they be good or bad. In this regard, capital punishment treats human beings as intelligent beings who have sense enough to receive their “just reward”.

Additional questions pertaining to the constitutionality of a death sentence, its cost versus the cost of life in prison, and the question of retribution versus revenge, all heat the ongoing debate. The purpose of this blog is not to add to that debate per se.

Rather, the fact that the judicial process surrounding such a sentencing requires nearly perfect administration is what concerns me. Several cases reveal such serious flaws that they have clearly failed to produce justice.

The case of Delma Banks, a black Huntsville inmate, demonstrates these concerns when he received a stay of execution within 10 minutes of receiving a lethal injection in 2003. His sentence was commuted in 2012 based on rife prosecutional misconduct, which is to say there was not sufficient proof available to verify he committed the murder, and indeed there was ample evidence proving his innocence. As a result he is still alive, but how many are not because such misconduct?

Additionally, in 2007 Texas Court of Appeals presiding Judge Sharon Keller inadvertently refused a last minute appeal of a death row inmate by closing the Court at 5 pm sharp. He was executed later that night. I hope her reasoning was sound because in my mind if the potential for innocence exists, it should be considered, regardless of trivial matters such as the Court’s hours. This is obvious and, once again, reasonable.

The case of Troy Davis, also an African-American, is also a case-in-point. He was executed in 2011 despite the fact that 7 of his 9 commuters recanted and 10 witnesses have since come forward to accuse a different man at the crime scene. Furthermore, there was no DNA evidence proving he was the convicted killer.

Clearly, his guilt was not proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. Is this due to apathy in the courts or administrative incompetence? That would be hard to believe given the intensity of the media coverage and the fact that we are talking about the Supreme Court. In addition, if it were an issue of racism (both examples are African American) then the associated numbers would reveal a higher number of blacks on death row in proportion to lesser crimes committed. In reality, it is the the higher number of violent crimes committed by African Americans, and there are proportionately just as high of a number of white inmates who have been executed. Though I don’t dispute that racial issues influence judicial processes, my point is that it doesn’t answer the dilemma we have in addressing potential innocence on death row.

I am not sure what the problem is, but if I could cast the deciding vote I would say that until the  system is capable of maintaining already established standards of justice, it shouldn't be given such authority. If and when its competency is proven then the debate makes sense.Capital punishment would not be administered on my watch unless the system itself was consistent in assuming one’s innocence unless substantiated proof was provided. In this day and age, it should go without saying that DNA verification would be required.

http://deathpenalty.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=002000

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/04/12/fla-killer-gore-set-to-die-by-lethal-injection/?intcmp=obinsite

http://www.newsmax.com/Koch/Death-Penalty-Racist-Troy/2011/09/27/id/412402

http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/tag/delma-banks

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/sep/20/troy-davis-execution-pardon-denied

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/01/26/texas-executes-convicted-killer-in-4-rape-death/?intcmp=obinsite

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/04/18/ohio-set-to-execute-convicted-killer/

The Dream Act and the Nature of Citizenship

Ms. Nance’s position on the Republican version of the DreamAct is contradictory and doesn’t take into account the historic controversy surrounding immigration law. The difficulty in solving the immigration problem is finding a fair way to address the status of illegals without creating amnesty and while simultaneously managing to keep the requirements for citizenry in place. It is a complex issue and to oversimplify it by claiming it will create class warfare misses the point.

She argues that because the bill does not provide legal citizenship to illegal immigrants, it will push the country towards class warfare by inadvertently creating an inferior third class which “would encourage problems that go hand-in-hand with a new, inherently lower class(es), such as racial stereotyping”.  

I have a hard time understanding this logic. Turning it into a class warfare issue does nothing to address the reason why our government isn’t getting anywhere with the problem of illegals. It’s the issue regarding citizenship that has bogged down progress, and for several reasons.

First, it is not likely, and rightfully so, that a sufficient majority of congressional leaders are going to toss aside already existing immigration laws. It is not a reasonable option, unless we ignore the law. Thus, providing a mechanism which provides a middle ground for illegals, who simply want to get on with their lives, who could care less as to whether they can vote or not, is both fair and reasonable.

Secondly, opening the floodgates of immigration by allowing for citizenship based on education or military service does not allay concerns pertaining to the legitimate drain this could have on limited American resources. One of the reasons we have legal standards for citizenship is to limit lazy, corrupt, dishonest or otherwise immoral individuals from taking advantage of this nation’s resources. That’s how most countries work.

Again, it is not likely any legislation that doesn’t address this issue is ever going to get through Congress. Thus it makes sense to find a method which would allow for legal status to be granted based on the merit of the individual, arguing that they will be an asset to this nation, not a detriment.
  

The Republican version of the Dream Act doesn’t ban an illegal from future citizenship; it simply doesn’t make citizenship readily available and easy to obtain. How does this segregate individuals into a third class? It seems to me that Ms. Nance has not considered the value this legislation has in providing a way for an illegal to prove him or herself, through hard work and discipline, thus paving their own way for future success and stability through legal means.

The new version of the Dream Act will not spoon feed illegals. The assumption is that the privilege of being an American citizen warrants an individual taking it upon him or herself to prove they deserve, and therefore should be entitled to, such a privilege. That endeavor requires initiative and effort, but it does not force a third class status on anyone. Rather, it allows those excellent individuals to be rewarded as such.

I wonder if the argument she is making has more to do with creating legislation that will enhance votes, rather than to enhancing lives. Should the huge influx of illegals be given citizenship, they will provide a tremendous voter base for Democrats in upcoming elections. Simply giving them legal status will not give them this voting power.

 I suppose the same argument could be made in reverse, that by disallowing citizenship the Republicans are making this a partisan issue to block Democratic votes, except the Democrats already gave it their best shot and could not get the original Dream Act-with its mechanism for citizenship- passed, even among fellow Democrats. The reason? It does not address the fundamental concern this nation has regarding the nature of citizenship. Ultimately, that is not a partisan argument; it is a legal one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGAV7UIN3hQ

http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/05/opinion/navarrette-dream-act/index.html

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/politics/219693-latinos-getting-the-dream-act-right

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/03/15/445762/rubio-takes-dream-out-of-dream-act/?mobile=nc

Give Justice a Chance

The Treyvon Martin shooting has been the subject of our dinner conversations for several weeks now, and, not surprisingly, it has evolved into a debate among my children and I regarding the influence the media has in shaping public opinion. Though I was initially outraged by the blatant racial overtones and disregard for justice (why wasn’t Zimmerman arrested?), I have since come to appreciate how much more complex the case really is.  Racism and disrespect of our legal system is clearly present, but it doesn't take much to see that the roles presented by the media are deceptive and frustrate the need to gather truth.

The death of Treyvon Martin is a tragedy that requires justice, but for justice to be served, due processes is necessary to discover who the victim/perpetrator really are. Catapulting this case into the mainstream without carefully considering every element of the story is an irresponsible manipulation of media. In it we find a serious, indeed alarming, situation in which our legal system’s standard of justice, i.e. innocent until proven guilty and trial by jury, is being disregarded. 


The force driving the Martin/Zimmerman controversy is not racism per se. If it were then front page news would state the case plainly: the vast amount of violence against Blacks in America is not being perpetrated by Whites. Rather, it is being perpetrated by Blacks themselves, and to a significant degree. In addition, where is the Latino voice in all this?

The underlying issue has nothing to do with addressing real issues of violence or solving real problems of racism. Instead, the momentum seems to be effectively increasing the amount of hatred American’s feel towards one another. Doing so increases racial tension and leads to what? Class war?

I am not politically sophisticated enough to answer that question, but there doesn’t appear to be a more explosive issue, or one that is more easily manipulated, and this case-presented in the media’s carefully crafted light -is doing an excellent job of it. However, if our nation is to function on principles of justice then it is critical for Americans to use caution in developing public opinion, and the best way to do that is to connect the political dots.

It was revealing to me  to look at the role the radical Black Panthers have had in biasing this case.  In a recent press conference the new Black Liberation Militia revealed its intention to perform a citizen’s arrest on Zimmerman, offering a $10,000 reward for anyone assisting in his “capture”, and provided flyers with such blatant provocations as “Murdered in Cold Blood” and “Child Killer of Trayvon Martin-Wanted Dead or Alive”. Where is the standard of being innocent before proven guilty? Even former NAACP leader C.L. Bryant accused longtime Black Panther supporters Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton of exploiting the case in order to racially divide the nation. And indeed, how effective they’ve been.

I’m not using this blog to plead the cases of Zimmerman or Martin. Both are surrounded in controversy that warrants careful and judicious consideration, but that is my point exactly. Our Founder’s understood, and in fact the history of the nation has demonstrated, that for justice to prevail it is best that a legal system restrain human emotion, not to be dictated by it. This is no small thing. Mob violence was and is a very real concern, one that needs to be prevented. There is no way for justice to be served unless it is carried by the protective restraints of law and order.

Law and order require evidence and until the legal system can do its job, the only noncontroversial facts in this case are that Treyvon Martin was killed by a bullet from George Zimmerman’s gun and Zimmerman has claimed self defense. Short of that, the evidence being present by the Court of Media is tainted.

The public outcry is that Zimmerman was racist, yet the most recent report indicates that the 911 record did not reveal racism. Zimmerman’s history as a neighborhood watch didn’t reveal racism (he intervened with Whites, Hispanics as well as Blacks, had black friends and black family members). In addition, Treyvon was not an innocent boy as his posted pictures indicate. He was a 6’2” football player kicked out of school for drug related issues who left a series of tweets that reveal a not-so-innocent young man.

Does it matter whether George had black friends or how big Treyvon was or that he liked to smoke pot? Maybe, maybe not, but at this point no one knows-nor will they- until the police and the justice system has had the opportunity to gather the facts.

Unfortunately, the media has lost no time in creating a public opinion tsunami which does not serve justice. Media-consumers need to recognize how dangerous this can be and take caution that their sentiments are being developed through careful consideration of the facts, which takes time and deliberation. It doesn’t appear that the Black Panthers are going to be spoon feeding any such unbiased information. The public will have to do that on its own.

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-03-26/news/os-trayvon-martin-zimmerman-account-20120326_1_miami-schools-punch-unarmed-black-teenager

http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/26/the-daily-caller-obtains-trayvon-martins-tweets/

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/report-new-black-panther-party-issues-wanted-dead-or-alive-poster-for-george-zimmerman/

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/03/23/arrest-demand-grows-in-florida-teens-shooting-death/?test=latestnews
http://hardincountyconservatives.blogspot.com/2012/03/race-card-hypocrisy-in-black-florida.html

http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/news/2012/03/30/trayvon-martin-case-photos-can-be-deceiving/

 http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/news/2012/03/30/trayvon-martin-latino-groups-under-fire-for-silence-over-zimmerman/#ixzz1qw97bzRx

http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/news/2012/03/30/trayvon-martin-latino-groups-under-fire-for-silence-over-zimmerman/#ixzz1qw9Z9Yw4

http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/26/former-naacp-leader-accuses-sharpton-and-jackson-of-exploiting-trayvon-martin/#ixzz1qwB1Gykt

Ann Coulter's Digestible Partisan-ism and Why RomneyCare Matters

     I can appreciate why, after 116 days of Constitutional debates, many of the Founder’s were hesitant to entertain further discussion propelled by the Bill of Rights. They were, after all, mentally and emotionally exhausted by the process, and I am guessing many of them could simply not take it anymore.

     This has nothing to do with my blog-editorial-analysis assignment, except for the fact that the authors of our text have repeatedly emphasized the detrimental effect hate mongering in the media has on public involvement. Generally it turns people off, increasing public cynicism and lending itself towards individual apathy in the political process.

     I can see how that would be. I haven’t spent much time reading political blogs, but I did last night- 2 ½ hours, in fact. That’s how long it took me to find Ann Coulter’s piece. It was the first I could read without my blood boiling. Had I known reading both ends of political blogs was so emotionally harrowing, I would have come better prepared. Nonetheless, despite the partisan venom, I have endured the process and - like the fruits of our Founder’s stamina - have a much greater appreciation for the complexities surrounding the central theme in public debate these days: healthcare reform.

      Ms. Coulter’s piece didn’t just catch my attention because it was less provoking; she made some points regarding Romneycare, and mandated healthcare in general, that aren’t altogether popular. That her points are worth considering and should be part of our public debate is evidenced by the extensive and controversial information I found in response to her claims.

     She seems to be speaking to the conservative right when she suggests that Mitt Romney’s effort in addressing healthcare reform in Massachusetts was constitutional and in accordance with free market principles. Though the names are synonymous, federally mandated Obamacare is not the same.

Yet I wonder whether this is really the case? Technically it is true that the Constitution prohibits certain powers from Congress, and mandated healthcare is one of them. But ideologically does that fact alone entitle the states the right to compel citizens to be healthcare-responsible in the name of preventing huge healthcare expenditures by the state that come about when we are not? Apparently yes: seatbelt laws, motor vehicle restrictions, hazardous waste disposal are all state mandated. I suppose the answer to these questions comes about as laws are passed and implemented. The proof comes in the pudding, so to speak.

     Coulter points out that Romney’s healthcare cause was in response to the huge influx of uninsured free riders burdening states’ budgets. Due to an unfunded 1946 federal mandate, which required hospitals to provide free medical services to anyone in need, the free riders’ floodgate was opened wide and states were left do whatever they could to bail themselves out.

     According to Coulter, Governor Romney did just that, and mentions several prominent conservatives, who applauded his maneuver to require individually mandated private healthcare coverage of all Massachusett’s residents as a stroke of free-market genius. However, there is another school of thought that claims the free-rider issue is not the issue at all, that the number of uninsured who do not pay for their care is not detrimental to healthcare and could be more readily corrected by fee collectors who are more diligent.

     However, like Obamacare, both health plans would be mandated, which is the conservative hate-word and the reason why Republicans are up in arms over the issue. The difference is that Romney’s plan, on a state instead of a federal level, places healthcare into the hands of consumers who must buy but still have the right to choose what they buy. Thus Romney was speaking the golden word of economics,  that is by allowing competition to drive the market, the market thrives.  This, according to many conservative voices, is just what healthcare and America needs. I tend to agree. F.A. Hayek’s The Road to Serfdom espouses the same principle and provides a sound argument for the free market-based thinking.

     In other articles, Coulter clearly espouses Romney’s legitimate success and Midas-touch expertise as a demonstration of his free market mastery and his ability to rally forces and negotiate compromise, especially in as antagonistic a state as liberal-dominant democratic Massachusetts.

     Her claim is that the Massachusetts legislature did two things that caused Romney’s plan to run amuck. First, by re establishing the threshold for receiving a subsidy they were, in essence, providing for the re distribution of wealth. Secondly, by adding multiple mandates which were on behalf of special interests, they essentially destroyed the no frills group-rate private plan that was a cornerstone to the affordability of Romneycare.

     Thus it was not Romney but the Massachusetts legislature that turned Romneycare into the predecessor of the “2000 page, trillion-dollar federal program micromanaging every aspect of health care in America with enormous, unresponsive federal bureaucracies manned by no-show public-sector union members enforcing a mountain of regulations that will bankrupt this country and destroy medical care”. Thus Coultur denounces them” daggum democrats”, but in a fashion that is much more conducive to intelligent discussion versus a fury of emotional and oftentimes outlandish claims present on many other blogs.

     Though I tend to turn a deaf ear to party politics, to a certain degree I agree that the outcome of the Romney plan was adversely affected by a democratic agenda. I think the evidence in that regard is plain and clear. I am also particularly appreciative of the support she gives Romney for not just doing “something”, but for the potential genius of his plan to reverse a the Kerry/Edwards socialistic trend in medicine as healthcare is freed from the free-rider burden and placed into the free market.

     However, the question regarding the real impact of the free rider detriment is still unanswered in my mind and is more complex than I have the ability to address at this time. Do I have the ability to trust Ms. Coulter’s expertise in this regard?  At this point I would have to say no. Though I appreciate her tone and many of her arguments, as a blog-consumer I’m much too skeptical to allow myself to develop a bias based on her opinion. Facts will have to be foraged before I can voice my opinion.

http://www.michiganlawreview.org/articles/free-rider-a-justification-for-mandatory-medical-insurance-under-health-care-reform

http://healthcarereform.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=004182

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/02/02/three-cheers-for-ann-coulter.html

http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/v29n5/cpr29n5-1.html

http://reason.com/archives/2004/11/01/mandatory-health-insurance-now

A Critique of "ObamaCare's Greatest Awakening" by Joe Rago

Wall Street Journal editorial board member Joe Rago provides readers with a case-in-point argument regarding the opportunistic nature of unchecked political control when personal choice is legislated. He believes this is the inherent problem in ObamaCare, and is likely to get worse unless repealed. His article, "ObamaCare’s Great Awakening", sites Health and Human Service’s (HHS) recent mandate requiring that almost all insurance companies pay for contraceptive and sterilization methods regardless of religious beliefs.

The fact that HHS has been given the authority, in the name of standardized health care, to ignore individual choice, especially those specifically protected by the First Amendment, implies a significant break in the moral aspect of public policy. It leaves up to administrative discretion what even the most liberal states have avoided, which is, simply stated, the right for the government to decide, via healthcare, what should be left to the discretion of the individual.

Mr. Rago points out that since the Affordable Care Act (ACA) is lengthy and extremely ambiguous, it is left up to HHS to decide the logistical specifics of the act, which, in this case, prohibits out-of-pocket costs for birth control. His insight points to the infringement of personal liberty by those doing the regulating, because agency selections for the public are irrelevant to personal choice. He illustrates the subsequent enabling relationship that is formed between the regulators and the federal government. Together their abuse of fundamental personal liberties far exceeds anything ever justified within the restraints of the Constitution. Surely this does not represent the separation of power championed by our Constitution, or the checks and balances system necessary to prevent tyranny. That this situation has rightfully awakened the concern of all faiths and no faith alike indicates the across the board threat it poses to liberties and freedom nationwide.

The breadth of his argument, however, goes beyond the obvious infringement of First Amendment rights, which has become a wakeup call for many of the Catholic left who supported ObamaCare. That they were willing to overlook the obvious and severe pitfalls of legislated health care in order to win the liberal  prize of enforced equality, is indicative of the deceptive nature of the Obama beast, and serves as a voice of warning for what we can look forward to in 2013.As well are the pro-life Democrats who were, at one time, willing to speak out against ObamaCare, but instead accepted a dubious executive order compromise which would prevent subsidized abortions from federal funds.

His central concern is pointed at presidential hopeful Mitt Romney, but is really being addressed to all Americans and it is a point that he does not feel we cannot afford to miss.  That is that yes, the HHS ruling is an infringement on our religious freedom which rightfully should be protected.  However, dissected more deeply one appreciates the magnitude of the problem of a government which is given the authority to decide who can and should receive health benefits and who is required to pay for them. Because of its nature, a government will then exploit this power to dictate the outcomes of its own policies and interests, which is, in this case, that women’s health wins over religious concerns. This unchecked political power is exactly what our Constitution was designed to prevent.

Mr. Rago’s keen perception and astute political insight is consistent with the political philosophies of the Framers of the Constitution, and rings in particular harmony with the voice of James Madison who in the 51^st Federalist Paper made clear that because angels do not govern men it is necessary that we have internal and external mechanisms to keep governments in check.

Indeed, what Mr. Madison is referring to and Mr. Rago is talking about is that the interaction between HHS, the Affordable Care Act and ObamaCare really isn’t about birth control or healthcare or insurance plans or even the First Amendment. What is really being achieved by such narrowly drawn mandates is the forcing of individuals out of the protection of the private sector and into the overreaching hand of government. This is the looming issue, and has been since the dawn of time, because historically there is a shortage of angels. 

That the Obama administration has rushed an excessively complex, lengthy and grossly under read document through Congress and effectively touted it as the government’s responsibility in equalizing health care is an exercise in deception and, without a repeal, I think Mr. Rago’s opinion accurately and clearly describes the dilemma America now faces. His logic precisely ties together the depth of the issue and is particularly significant as we the people consider the upcoming election and our participation in it.

High Court Deliberation and its Impact on Human Rights

     Human rights versus the protection of corporate or government entities is not a new controversy, nor will it likely end in one great judicial decision, but the process of deciding the accountability of multinational corporations and organizations in war crimes, killings and other atrocities is evolving as the Supreme Court hears arguments regarding the reach of two pieces of legislation: the Alien Tort Statute and the Torture Victim Protection Act of 1992. This judicial process, argued against entities whose power must be checked by laws which are in behalf of individuals whose rights have been violated, is a demonstration of the dynamic genius of a constitutional system wherein the balance of power between the government and the governed allows for such deliberations.

     In this Fox News article, the Supreme Court will, through judicial review, more exactly define what a corporation is as regards human rights issues. In question is the 223 year old Alien Tort Act. Cases have been successfully argued using this law against individual perpetrators of human rights crimes, but can multinational corporations be held similarly accountable if they are doing business where the atrocities occur and are complicit in such crimes? Such is the case with Royal Dutch Shell which, it is claimed, in protection of its interests, was complicit in Nigerian government crimes against its people which culminated in the brutal hanging of 9 activists, including author Saro-Wiwa.

     Corporations are lucrative targets of such claims, but he question still remains as to whether they cannot be considered individuals for the sake of human rights violations, but yet are considered individuals (based on the 2010 ruling in the Citizens United Supreme Court case) for the sake of influencing elections through expenditures and voicing support. The court must deliberate and rule on this potential paradox.

     The Supreme Court in 2004 guardedly endorsed some usage of the Alien Tort Act to hold corporations accountable in this way, but the outcome of this case will be much more definitive due to the appeal by the multinational Rio Tinto, which argues that the 1789 law was never intended to apply to a foreign government within its borders against it people. If that appeal is won then all cases under this law pertaining to corporations will be wiped out.

     The Torture Victim Protection Act of 1992, also pertains to human rights crimes, but in the case being argued here is specific to those atrocities perpetrated by a government entity. However, in both cases the question for victims is if the American court cannot hear these cases and allow for justice and accountability, where can victims go?

     There is a risk to entertaining such arguments pertaining to foreign crimes occurring on foreign soil regarding a foreign people, in that the courts may appear "imperialistic" in their judgments, which has serious foreign policy implications for the United States. In addition, such rulings would discourage foreign investments by such giants as Shell as well as Exxon and Chevron, who are part of a 15 member corporate conglomerate supporting Shell in this case.

     The dynamics and implications of this case are complex and its outcome is far reaching. It certainly has the oil giants, as well as other multinationals, at the edge of their seats. 

     Should the court rule favorably for the victims, what new liability considerations would this have for corporations/entities worldwide? Will corporate investors be forced to hold foreign governments to a higher moral standard because the outcome speaks in dollars and cents? If so, how much impact could corporations have in foreign countries that violate human rights? 

     These concerns are paramount in my mind when the failing or success of the judicial system plays such a pivotal role in the outcome of human rights issues such as these.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/02/26/high-court-to-deliberate-on-whether-rights-groups-can-sue-companies-for/#ixzz1nYmwOC00

http://www.foxnews.com/topics/politics/citizens-united.htm#r_src=ramp

     

Nigerian