“Independence Day USA” in 2023

As we celebrate 247 years of governing independent of the English Empire of the 1700s, there is a great deal of concern regarding the direction Our country will take in the next 247 years.  We appear to be locked in another Civil War where this time is Red vs Blue rather than Blue vs. Gray.  Can we survive another one?  Is our two-Party duopoly equipped to bring an end to the war this time around?

Written by a former colleague of mine:

“The term ‘tip of the spear’ has come to represent those individuals, companies or organizations who popular opinion has deemed the first to face whatever unknown danger is hurled at them.

The FBI is such an organization and many of its people have lived at the tip of the spear previously, before migrating to the FBI. They are, generally, solid unassuming men and women who do the job without seeking public praise nor fearing public scorn.

As this LA Times column makes perfectly clear, the nation must have confidence in its institutions, particularly in the FBI.

The FBI is most often in the vortex of having the sole responsibility for investigating politicians accused of criminal violations and conducting those investigations with consistent standards no matter whom the target might be.

Under the law, a former president is no different from any other citizen.

Hand-wringing over ‘optics’ or fearing the unprecedented nature of an investigation is not and should not be a factor when conducting an investigation. It falls to the FBI director and the Attorney General to underscore that point publicly and early in such cases. Even during congressional hearings.

Now is not the time to be timid. Now, more than ever, it is time to reinforce that the rule of law applies equally to everyone.

As stated in this piece, ‘The chilling effect from their harping is obvious in the crazy caution Justice and the FBI displayed toward Trump.’

When you're the tip of the spear, there is room for caution, but not crazy caution.”

The following article was shared with the text written above:

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2023-06-21/weaponization-justice-department-fbi-republican-democrat-merrick-garland-bill-barr-hunter-biden

From the opening of the article:

Republicans keep gunning for Justice Dept. and FBI, but it’s Democrats who should have a beef with the feds

If Democrats are weaponizing the federal government against their political opponents, as Republicans charge, they’re doing a really bad job of it.

My reply to my colleague and the article:

Will we ever get people under the exclusive control of one of the two major Political Parties to remove their blinders long enough to see and face reality? How on earth has this corrupted form of democracy we have, a duopoly where less than 60% of voters exercise 100% control of government power, survived for 247 years.

And 100% of those registered to one of the two Parties hates the 28% (give or take) of registered voters that are in the other Party. It’s no wonder the country that is supposed to be controlled by 100% of #WtP has become so dysfunctional. It’s time to give control to the 40% that think for themselves!!!

Another former colleague then responded:

“It’s not a ‘Democracy’, it’s a ‘Republic.’ Many dismiss that statement by trying to equate the two, but the difference is significant. A Democracy is majority rule and infringes on liberties. A Republic provides for representation of all citizens, including the minority. The genesis of the duopoly is the reduction and now often outright elimination of the teaching of Civics. A majority of youth, fellow citizens, and even elected representatives I’ve encountered fail at demonstrating the genius of our founding fathers to put forth our Constitutional Republic which embodies power in the people. We do not elect ‘leaders’, we elect ‘representatives’. The word leader does not appear in the Constitution, but representative does. Most don’t understand the power they as individual citizens have and thus fail to exercise it. Most don’t understand the Article I branch is the most powerful as our representatives over the other two ‘co-equal’ branches. The Article I branch can overrule the Article II branch veto. The Article I branch can also overturn the Article III branch rulings via legislation passed into Law by the Article II branch signing it or having the veto overruled. It will take a generation of teaching to correct.”

To which I replied:

“It will take a generation of teaching to correct.” Except our Article I duopoly will continue to ensure that education is never allowed to happen in order to maintain self-preservation of the duopoly.

Shortly after the online conversation above, I came across the following article that is, coincidentally, completely independent of the conversation I had been having, but it has some striking similarities and so much more that should be read by every U.S. citizen before November 2024:

https://amp-cnn-com.cdn.ampproject.org/c/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2023/07/04/politics/american-political-divisions-july-fourth/index.html

A couple excerpts from that one:

The ideal of national unity celebrated on July Fourth has almost always been overstated: the country from its founding has been riven by sectional, racial, class and gender conflicts. Large groups of people living within our borders have always felt excluded from any proclaimed national consensus: American Indians who were brutally displaced for decades, Black people who faced generations of legal slavery and then decades of state-sponsored segregation, women denied the vote until the 20th century.

To Wolfe, the US is now trapped in a “vicious cycle” of rising partisan and ideological hostility in which political leaders, particularly on the right, see a “benefit in fueling the rage even more.” While President Joe Biden, Wolfe says, has struck traditional presidential notes of emphasizing the value of national unity, Trump – currently the front-runner for the 2024 GOP presidential nomination – has built his political strategy on widening the nation’s divides in ways that may be difficult to reverse any time soon. “I don’t know if [Trump’s] a political genius or just instinctively knows something, but he sure has exacerbated the shocks, and I don’t know how we are going to recover from him,” Wolfe says.

I’d say more from my own perspective and experience, but there isn’t anything I could say that wasn’t said above.  I know it’s been a long while since I’ve had the desire to post here, so thank you for checking in today.

America’s Collapsing Democracy

As a country, the United States of America (US) exists with its Constitution as its foundation.  As its foundation crumbles, so too does everything it supports.  Many are saying the US is heading toward a second Civil War.  Truthfully, this country has been locked in a second Civil War for more than a decade where the sole purpose of each of two sides has been to destroy the other side.  But how did the US get here?

For more than two centuries, the US Constitution has provided a solid foundation which has been strong enough to support both democracy and the political establishment (The Establishment) consisting of two political parties maintaining 100 percent of the power to govern the US.  Though the Constitution was never designed to create a country controlled exclusively by two parties, it has always been able to support The Establishment because there had been enough balance to place a nearly equal amount of stress on each side of the foundation.  In the 1860s, that foundation crumbled, and it took strong leadership from people like President Abraham Lincoln to rebuild the foundation and restore the balance required to sustain it into the future.

Civil War II

Civil War I

From 1789 until the 1850s and again from the late 1860s into the 1990s, The Establishment made up a vast majority of the US Electorate, with each half consisting of nearly 50 percent.  All that began to change as the US entered the 21st Century and voters began to become more and more disillusioned with The Establishment and renounce Party affiliation.  As of today, it is estimated that less than 25 percent of registered voters are affiliated with the half of The Establishment currently listed on ballots as the Republican Party, while less than 30 percent make up the Democratic Party.  That is less than 55 percent of the Electorate holding 100 percent of the power to govern.  Is that how democracy is meant to operate?

While many Democrats still get a bad taste in their mouths when they think about President Ronald Reagan, one of the things that made Reagan so successful was his ability to get the two sides of The Establishment to collaborate.  Since 2010, however, the US Congress has operated exclusively under the principle that whichever half of The Establishment had control at a given point in time would use their majority to pass legislation without any input or support from the other half.  It was that lack of compassion and compromise that began to crack the foundation.

Fast forward to 2016, when the Republican Party itself began to splinter.  By 2021, the two very separate and distinct pieces became the Party of Insurrection aka the Party of Trump (PoT) with Donald Trump as its leader and the RINOS (Republicans In Name Only, as Trump would refer to the other piece) with no leaders and no organizational structure.

Party of Insurrection

RINOS

Remember, the entire Republican Party for much of the 21st Century was made up of around 25 percent of the US Electorate.  Now that the Party has split in two, each piece is considerably less than 25 percent of the Electorate.  Because The Establishment has exclusive control of the US Government, the Republican Party is still allotted one of two lines on each ballot in every US election.  Whichever piece of the less than 25 percent wins the race will get rewarded with a near 50 percent control of the US Government.  Is that democracy?

The Establishment was built to ensure outsiders would have little access to get listed on election ballots and even less of a chance of being elected.  Before the splintering of the Republican Party, protecting The Establishment from the rise of third parties had always been the one issue for which Republicans and Democrats could always agree.  As the Constitutional foundation continues to crack, however, the chaos resulting from the division of what used to be the Republican Party will soon cause the foundation to completely collapse, just as it did in the 1850s.

Since its formation in 2016, the PoT has been shedding members like a furry dog sheds fur.  Does the PoT experience any growth to sustain itself, or does it only shed members?  Are the departing members of the PoT joining the ranks of the RINOS, the Democrats, or the Independents?  In six years of existence, what is the PoT doing, if anything, to grow its base?  Also, how can a Party successfully lead a government when it considers government institutions such as the FBI, the IRS, the CDC, the EPA, and many others to be among its biggest enemies.  I can tell you from experience, the FBI has many, many enemies.  Those enemies all have one common characteristic – they either are criminals or they love and support criminals.

Rest assured, any enemy of the US Government is an enemy of We the People (WtP), the owners of the US.  It is up to WtP to either preserve democracy by repairing the cracks and restoring the Constitutional foundation to be able to withstand the weights of the 21st Century or by letting it be replaced by a huge Trump Tower in 2024, with its brand new foundation designed by one person rather than WtP.  Vote for Democrats in November 2022 (VoteBlueIn22) or you’ll be voting to give up the rights of WtP forever.

Party of Insurrection, RINOS, or other?

The Constitution and Abortion

Should abortion be a legal healthcare option available for women to choose to terminate a pregnancy?  How is this question addressed by the Constitution (Constitution) of the United States of America (USA)?  How is this question addressed by the Congress of the USA (Congress)?  How is this question addressed by the various States that make up the USA (States)?  Read on to learn more.

What does the Constitution say about abortion?  Nothing.  There are no references in the Constitution to the words “abort”, “abortion”, “woman”, “women”, “birth”, “pregnant”, “pregnancy”, “child”, “children”, or anything about individuals having choices beyond electing representation.  Does the Constitution apply to how laws are enacted related to abortion?  Absolutely.  Keep reading.

What parts of the Constitution may apply to abortion?  Let’s discuss the possibilities.

Article VI. 

[The Supremacy Clause] This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Amendment I.

[Freedom of Religion Clause] Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

Amendment XIV. 

SECTION 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

What are the most influential laws related to Abortion?

Roe v. Wade

In 1969, "Jane Roe" challenged a number of criminal abortion laws in Texas that were used to force 25-year-old single mother Norma McCorvey to give birth to a child conceived from rape. The State forbade abortion as unconstitutional, except in cases where the mother's life was in danger.  Rape was not an acceptable exception to those laws.

Planned Parenthood v. Casey

The Pennsylvania legislature amended its abortion laws in 1988 and 1989. Among the new provisions, the law required informed consent and a 24-hour waiting period prior to the procedure. A minor seeking an abortion was required to have the consent of one parent.  A married woman seeking an abortion had to indicate that she notified her husband of her intention to abort the fetus. These provisions were challenged by several abortion clinics and physicians.  A federal appeals court upheld all the provisions except for the husband notification requirement.

The Supreme Court ruled that a law cannot place legal restrictions imposing an undue burden for "the purpose or effect of placing a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion of a nonviable fetus”.

Others

The Texas Heartbeat Act

“AN ACT relating to abortion, including abortions after detection of an unborn child's heartbeat; authorizing a private civil right of action.”

Mississippi's "Fetal Heartbeat" Law

bill banning abortions once a fetal heartbeat is detected, which occurs at about six weeks. Under this law, after detection of a fetal heartbeat, women would only be able to get an abortion to save their life. Doctors performing an abortion that isn't in compliance with this law would face up to six months in jail. 

Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 

The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 is a United States law prohibiting a form of late termination of pregnancy called "partial-birth abortion", referred to in medical literature as intact dilation and extraction.  Under this law, any physician "who, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, knowingly performs a partial-birth abortion and thereby kills a human fetus shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both". The law was enacted in 2003, and in 2007 its constitutionality was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Gonzales v. Carhart.

How can a diverse country like the USA come to a consensus on an issue as contentious as abortion?  To get to consensus, we must start with questions for which agreement can be reached with relative ease:

Is there some point in which a fetus becomes a human being?  I can’t imagine this question not having a very high majority of “Yes” answers, whether from science or religion.

Does Government in the USA have a responsibility to protect the life of human beings?  I believe the Constitution pretty clearly makes a strong case for a “Yes” answer, even though the Constitution doesn’t apply to those who aren’t “born”.

Should abortion be a legal option for women’s health care?  I think a vast majority would answer “Yes” since even the laws that have been challenged in Court have had use cases where abortion was considered legal (especially in terms of the life of a mother-to-be).

Should abortion be an available option just before, or even after, a full-term delivery?  I would be shocked if even one percent of We the People (WtP) didn’t say “No” to that question, even though the Constitution is applicable only to those who have been “born” which, in this case, includes the period following delivery.

Should any law addressing abortion have allowances for specified exceptions?  Again, even the most restrictive laws contain exceptions, so I can’t see any path to an answer other than “Yes” to this question.

Should a woman be allowed to take actions, at any point in time, to prevent or terminate a pregnancy?  While there are some among WtP that feel strongly that even birth control should not be allowed, I still think an overwhelming majority of WtP would answer this question with a resounding “Yes”.  Don’t forget, the USA is supposed to be, according to our Constitution, a Democratic Republic, not a Rule by the Few.

With the easier questions settled, we can then begin to focus our attention and discussions on the more difficult questions:

At what point does a fetus become a human being?  Since the Constitution refers only to people who have been “born”, this becomes a question of law.  But, who should make the laws and how restrictive can the laws be without violating the Constitutional protections of the pregnant woman who is protected since she is already “born”.

What is the point in fetal development where a Government’s responsibility for protecting human life should outweigh a woman’s choice to abort a pregnancy?  Again, the Constitution applies only to those who have been “born”, but it would be very reasonable in 2022 for a Government to protect those who are about to be “born” and certainly those who could live if separated from the mother.  It would also be quite unreasonable, on the other hand, to expect a mother-to-be to make an informed choice about whether or not to abort a pregnancy before she has even had time to process the fact that she is pregnant.

From the Constitution:

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

- Does any State have jurisdiction over persons before they are “born”?  The Constitution does not give any jurisdiction over those who haven’t been “born”, but it also doesn’t prohibit States from exercising jurisdiction, as long as it doesn’t interfere with the Constitutional protections given to those who have been “born”, such as the mother-to-be.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”

- Many of the arguments against legalized abortion are based on religious beliefs.  The Constitution does not address people who haven’t been “born”, but it does provide protections against imposing one person’s religious beliefs upon another person?

Roe vs Wade

[the Privacy Clause] “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

This is the basis for the 1973 Supreme Court decision known as RoeVWade.  The clause applies to the mother-to-be who has been “born”, but it doesn’t apply to the fetus that hasn’t been ”born”.  How does this apply to abortion?  Ruth Bader Ginsberg herself “argued that it would have been better to take a more incremental approach to legalizing abortion, rather than the nationwide ruling in Roe that invalidated dozens of state antiabortion laws. She suggested a ruling protecting abortion rights would have been more durable if it had been based on the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution — in other words, if it had focused on gender equality rather than the right to privacy that the justices highlighted.”  Regardless, the Privacy Clause was not intended to address abortion and its use for such is definitely questionable.

RoeVWade was determined by the Supreme Court to be excessively restrictive.  Current laws being enacted by States such as Texas and Mississippi are considered by many to be just as restrictive as the Texas and Georgia laws that were deemed unconstitutional in RoeVWade.  But, who is responsible for creating and enforcing laws in the USA, the Representatives of WtP or the Supreme Court of the USA?  If WtP have an overwhelming determination that States are being too restrictive with their laws, then WtP have the ability to vote for Representatives in the federal Legislative and Executive Branches of our Government that would represent our determination by placing Constitutionally acceptable boundaries, per the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, on the States.

What is the point in fetal development where a Government’s responsibility for protecting human life should outweigh a woman’s choice to abort a pregnancy?  The Constitution applies to people who have been “born”, but it doesn’t say we can’t put in protections for those who haven’t been “born”.  In 2022, that is where the discussion should be focused.  We need to move away from the extreme solutions favored by the far right and far left if we are to have any chance of coming to a consensus on this very important issue in what is supposed to be a civilized society.  Put limits on abortion while also giving a mother-to-be a reasonable opportunity to decide whether or not to continue a pregnancy to full term.

https://twitter.com/m64mcbride