Government Shutdowns, Good for We the People?

QUESTION ASKED BY CNN:  Are you concerned about a potential shutdown of the federal government? Tell us about it.

The federal government could shut down on October 1 if Congress can’t come to an agreement to fund federal agencies for fiscal year 2024. A shutdown could have wide-ranging impacts on everything from air travel to national parks and museums to food safety inspections. Are you worried that a federal government shutdown will disrupt your life or business?

MY ANSWER:  I am more worried about continuing to have a completely dysfunctional House of Representatives.  They all claim they want to do what's best for We the People of the USA (WtP), but do they really?  A shutdown is not in the best interest of any of WtP.  A dysfunctional House is not in the best interest of any of WtP.  Allowing extremists (either Left or Right) to have any say in Government whatsoever is not in the best interest of any of WtP.  The Senate Republicans and Senate Democrats have shown an ability to work together for the benefit of WtP.  It's time the more moderate House Republicans start working with the more moderate House Democrats and bring this country back toward its much more stable center.  THAT is what is in the best interest of WtP, the collective of all the people from the right, left, and center.  Anything less is an indication that the GOP is not working for WtP.

Presidential Disqualification by 14th Amendment

As of 9 September 2023, should Donald Trump be disqualified from running for President of the United States of America (U.S.) in 2024 based on the 14th Amendment, Section 3, which is written as follows:

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Let’s focus this discussion on the part that says, “shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.”  Who determines whether someone has “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” for the purposes of Section 3?  I, like many other registered voters that make up We the People (WtP), believe his actions following the election of 2020 should disqualify him, but should my personal belief or say so be enough to disqualify someone from running for public office?  Or, should the disqualification be determined by individual States, the State or Federal Judiciary, WtP in a referendum, or some other way?

Regardless of personal opinions, what about the principle commonly used in the U.S. where a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty in a Court of Law?  Should Trump be disqualified from running when he has not yet been convicted of a crime related to insurrection?  If he gets convicted of any crime in any of his four indictments, should any conviction disqualify him based on Section 3?  Section 3 does not specify any crime to be a disqualifier.  It specifically refers to being “engaged in insurrection or rebellion”.  Does “engaged” in the context of Section 3 require a conviction, or can some other criteria be considered?  This seems more and more to me like a question that the Judiciary would have to answer for WtP.

Trump has been charged in four separate, criminal cases.  In New York, he is charged with crimes associated with paying hush money in violation of election laws.  Is that insurrection or rebellion?  I don’t believe so.

In Florida, he is charged with crimes related to mishandling classified documents and obstructing justice in the investigations around the mishandling.  Is that insurrection or rebellion?  I don’t believe so, even though I believe mishandling classified documents should be its own disqualifier.  That is for a separate discussion outside of the 14th Amendment.

In Washington, DC, he is charged with many counts related to unlawful acts associated with criminal attempts to overturn the results of the 2020 election which culminated in a violent attack against Congress at the U.S. Capitol while Congress was in the process of performing a Constitutionally mandated function.  Is that insurrection or rebellion?  I believe it absolutely is.

In Georgia, he is charged with using the power of the Office of the President of the U.S. to attempt to overturn an electoral function reserved for the State of Georgia relative to the 2020 election.  Is that insurrection or rebellion?  I believe it absolutely is.

So, by my estimation, Trump is charged in two cases where Section 3 of the 14th Amendment should disqualify him from running for President and two cases where the 14th Amendment should not apply.  However, should there be a conviction by a Court of Law before Section 3 could be applied?  If we don’t require conviction, then what should be the alternate threshold and who should make that determination?

Am I Pro-Life or Am I Pro-Abortion?

I’d like to begin answering this question by stating that it is an infantile question that could only be accurately answered in its given form by a person with the brain of an infant.  Anyone who says they are one or the other is clearly living their life without a clue about much of anything.  For example, as much as I might wish to be, I can’t be considered pro-life because I believe there are certain circumstances in which the death penalty is the only appropriate punishment for certain people convicted of murdering one or more human beings.  I also can’t be considered pro-abortion because I am opposed to abortion in more scenarios than not.

I have taken the oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America (Constitution) on many occasions since I was 21 years of age.  It seems silly every time I had to take it after that because once was all I needed.  I consider it an oath for life and I will support and defend that ideal until the day I die, and perhaps beyond.  From that personal perspective, I will now address the titular question.

Since the topic of abortion appears to be at the top of mind for most Americans as we approach the 2024 Presidential Election, let’s focus on how the Constitution informs my opinion about the topic of abortion.  To begin, the Constitution contains only two references to the word “born” with no references at all to pregnancy or anything else related to one human being giving birth to another human being:

1. No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President

2. 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.

Unlike born, words related to elect, such as election, appear in the Constitution about 46 times.  Election is defined as “a process in which people vote to choose a person or group of people to hold an official position.”  So, the Constitution makes many references to “We the people of the United States” (WtP) having choices about how the United States of America (USA) is to be governed.

Based on my reading of the Constitution and my oath to support and defend it, I am heavily pro-choice because WtP are given the exclusive responsibility to choose our government and how we are to be governed.  I don’t believe any of us should be making choices for others of us except for those WtP have properly elected to do so.

Without regard to individual choices, the government of the USA has a responsibility to protect its “born” citizens:  

“The Congress shall have Power To … provide for the … general Welfare of the United States”.

So, should Congress have a responsibility to protect “unborn” children without infringing upon the rights of WtP to make our own choices?  Personally, I believe it is reasonable to require the protection of any “unborn” person who could survive on their own, outside the body of the mother, without extraordinary medical or other scientific intervention.  Prohibiting the choice to abort a pregnancy before the prospective mother could even know for certain she was pregnant, on the other hand, would be a clear infringement of that person’s right to choose.

Those who claim to be pro-life, which is unlikely to be completely true, have used the argument that life begins at conception.  That, however, is an unknowable point in time and is a bit arbitrary since some could argue the life began with the independent creation of the egg and the sperm.  Such arguments about the beginning of life often arise from religious beliefs, but religious beliefs should not be used in a Constitutional discussion.  The USA is not a country that is governed by religion and it was clearly created with an intent to avoid being ruled by any particular religion.  Regardless, setting a time earlier than it could reasonably be known that a pregnancy exists clearly infringes on the person’s right to choose to have a pregnancy.

For the vast majority of WtP, conception is a non-starter due to the unknown factors.  For the vast majority of WtP, the due date is a non-starter because the child could survive on its own just like those who are already “born”.  What is that point in between that would be least objectionable to WtP as a collective?  That is what our elected representatives should be working to determine instead of trying to force the majority to one extreme or the other.

The question shouldn’t be about pro-life or pro-abortion.  It should be about the timing of a reasonable dividing line between being allowed to abort and not being allowed to abort.  Abortion should also be defined in terms of personal decision versus medical emergency.  Terminating a pregnancy that could very well end in a successful delivery is a reasonable definition for an abortion.  A medical emergency to save a life, on the other hand, should never be characterized as an abortion, and such decisions should be made between medical personnel and the patients who are at risk, not the government or other members of WtP.

If WtP keep pushing for extremes instead of reasoned solutions, the Constitution will cease to function as it was designed to function and the USA will be no more.  Being a Democratic Republic requires negotiation and compromise.  WtP consists of more than 300 million individuals each having different ideas about how things should be.  If we can’t once again figure out a way to combine those different ideas into how we are to be governed, then the Democratic Republic of WtP will suffocate and die.