A few thoughts on Obama's inauguration as our nation's 44th president.
When I was five years old, my mother sat me down in front of the television on a cold January Chicago day and made me watch the inauguration of John Kennedy. I remember the power of his speech, although had I not heard it over and over in the years since, I probably would not have remembered its content. But it didn’t matter. What did matter was that it was an historic moments. A defining speech for a step into the unknown for my parents generation. Kennedy talked of space and sputnik; of service and of dreams, of freedom and its challenges. The times have changed, the mission is slightly altered but the essence of Kennedy’s words still resonates. …
Article comments
26 - Andy Marsh
Hey Stan! I voted for the other guy...his name is John McCain...be nice...he's a war hero dammit!
But I'm also willing and hopeful...yeah, I used the "H" word, to give him a shot and see him do well...
I liked reading what you said yesterday about staying up all night and watching our "show". It really is a pretty cool thing, ain't it?
27 - Hope and Change?
Oh, no....STM....now I get it ... STM is a supporter of those old and failed democrat party ideas who want to turn America into a "great society" where personal freedoms are destroyed, the government tells what to eat, read these books, cant say these words and where the government tells us how much money we can make. And if we are self sufficient the punish us by taking our "personal profits" and distributing it to who "they" think deserve it. Yes and era of where the readings are Karl Marx are favored over Jefferson.
[Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor]
Of course, the soon to be failed Presidency will never deliver real hope and change, right?
28 - Christopher Rose
H&C - That's three personal attacks from you just this morning. One more and I will ban you. This is your only warning...
29 - Brunelleschi
#23 Roger-
I know you didn't go there. I was just adding that as a parallel.
I see righties hanging on to 200+ year old writing and trying to make it work now, and Christian righties using 2,000 year old writing and trying to make it work now.
That was my real point. It's wasn't very clear, sorry.
30 - Brunelleschi
Christopher
Click away. H and C isn't here to discuss anything. This person is just trolling.
31 - Andy Marsh
Are you saying our constitution doesn't work?
32 - Brunelleschi
Would you drive across Europe with a 200 year old map?
33 - Andy Marsh
No, but I'd move into a house with a 200 year old deed.
34 - Roger Nowosielski
Bru,
I might agree with you on both points. I'm not certain, however, about which points you see the Constitution defective. It is being sold to us as a timeless document. So perhaps you can elaborate. Interestingly, the Brits don't have anything like that in writing, so how are they managing without the written text. Perhaps Doc or Christ or STM can enlighten us here.
As to the scriptures, matters of faith are more important to be than any particular dogma.
Roger
35 - Brunelleschi
What if the deed came with a blueprint of the house, and it had no wiring on it, and someone said you could use the house, but it has to be configured per the blueprint?
Would you pull the wiring and live without electricity?
Think of all the things that have developed since the constitution...
36 - Andy Marsh
I could be mistaken, but in the constitution I think they call those Amendments...there's a whole slew of 'em too!
37 - Brunelleschi
There is no such thing as a timeless document.
What I see in America right now is chaos. Divisions between left and right seem to be getting wider and more bitter.
Small government types, who are correct to use the constitution as a guide, are defeated. We have two parties fighting over how big government is going to be, and who will benefit, who will decide.
Laws pile upon laws. We tack on reform after reform, and we like government less all the time.
What's wrong?
Can't we slow down and look at government again, and ask ourselves the right questions? That's what philosophers do.
38 - Roger Nowosielski
Bru,
I was being somewhat facetious. Of course it must be capable of evolving. But what do you mean by re-thinking it? You know that process and precedence are integral aspects of Anglo-Saxon approach to parliamentary problems and common law. And we come from that tradition. I think it's a good tradition, providing both for safety and stablity.
Roger
39 - Brunelleschi
I think it is too. I was thinking more about the simple world of Locke, part of our tradition as well. Do we stop there?
Locke thought about the problem of the King's power, and his answer was a middle class of private property owners, who were protected from that King.
I'm sure you would agree history doesn't stop there. Who is still thinking about this stuff? Who is our philosopher NOW?
40 - (Mark) Eden
The world moves on, and those who don't recognize it shall perish. Old conceptions will fade away, and those who hold on to them are doomed.
There's a new vision in the making, a better, more enlightened vision. And it shall prevail. Count on it. Ultimately, we shall overcome.
To this cliche let me add mine. The world is not one of thought alone, and while 'enlightened visions' are nice, 'a chicken in every pot' is where it's at.
I don't see any positive paradigm emerging on the heels of Dave's 80% urban death rate when capitalism fails. Best to do all that we can to avoid that and not resign ourselves to its necessity.
To that end we need to develop a new 'philosophy-in-action of production'. Roger's visions and the new philosophy of government that Brunelleschi calls for will develop along with it.
Mark
41 - Roger Nowosielski
Mark,
Re # 41, I was only exercising my prerogative to engage in poetic flight. You've got to read in context.
Roger
42 - (Mark) Eden
No problems Rog...just riffing 'materialistic'.
43 - Ruvy
The right and Christian right (and Ruvy!) are looking back all the time, just to different eras. I think this is why they are so threatened by what they label as "liberalism" (progress).
Leave me out of this mess, Brunelleschi. I'm a syndicalist who leans towards socialism. I never liked liberalism, even when I was an atheist. My memories are of the United States, but my future is here.
I registered my thoughts on the matter of this inauguration. They are simple; Obama can't pull you out of the shithole you've been dug into - even with the best of intentions. I don't think Obama has the best of intentions.
But that is your problem now. And you are welcome to it.
As for your analysis of the American constitution, I think it is an excellent one. The American constitution has been an excellent document and has served well. But the governments of the world are located in corporate HQ's these days and democracy has been nearly snuffed out. That is as true in Europe as it is in the United States. There are a few places where democracy as a form of governance actually does work; town meetings in the USA, cantonal assemblies in Switzerland. But beyond that, it is pretty much dead. Freedom of speech appears to remain - until the chilling effects of a government (corporate or otherwise) being able to trace your every move electronically begins to seep into the culture. The best hope for the lot of you (and for me) is self-employment. That way you can curse out the SOB who ruins your life every time you look in the mirror to shave or put on lipstick (or both, as the case may be).
And now, boys and girls, I have to get back to work - before someone comes to cut the juice here.
44 - Roger Nowosielski
Pretty good, Ruvy,
Maybe it's the size thing. What do you think of the communitarian movement/philosophy in the eighties initiated by Amitrai Etzioni and others? It was quite hot at the time - a reaction against globalization trend - and then petered out.
Roger
45 - Ruvy
I'd love to stick around and chat, Roger, but I'm working on a book my neighbor needs. And I need money to make sure the juice doen't get cut off here. I wasn't joking about that.
Amitai Etzioni - an Israeli name, isn't it? In the eighties when this stuff was hotter, I was bottom feeding in the States, trying to survive. Seems like I'm doing the same thing these days, too.
The communitarianism of Etzioni was pulled out the syndicalist socialist movement that successfully built this country. I'll let you all chew on that for a bit....
46 - Christopher Rose
Oh look, two Americans divided by a common language!
Bruni: The right and Christian right (and Ruvy!) are looking back all the time, just to different eras. I think this is why they are so threatened by what they label as "liberalism" (progress).
Ruvy: Leave me out of this mess, Brunelleschi... I never liked liberalism.
Me: LOL!
As to the rest, it sure is time consuming doing these ruvality checks but as I'm here: the USA has challenges but isn't in a shithole, although arguably Ruvy is; and the USA isn't a democracy, it is a representative republic (thanks to Dave Nalle for the distinction), so it would presumably be a better idea for it to export that rather than democracy, which can easily become a particularly ugly version of mob rule.
47 - Roger Nowosielski
Yeah, Ruvy; he was a Chair at Columbia. Later then!
Roger
48 - Glenn Contrarian
To those who think the Constitution (and its amendments) is outdated:
What, exactly, is it that's outdated? Voting? Or just voting by women? How about freedom of speech? Freedom from search without a warrant, or imprisonment without a trial? Freedom of religion? Or how about the right to bear arms? Or the makeup of the three branches of the government?
WHAT EXACTLY IS OUTDATED ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION?
Oh, I forget! The following ARE outdated:
- Voting (see "voter suppression by the Republican Party", and a certain speech by the founder of the Heritage Foundation ("Elections have NEVER been decided by a majority vote!"))
- Voting by women (see "Ann Coulter")
- Freedom of speech (almost every book ever banned in the U.S. has been banned because it offended conservative 'values')
- Freedom from search without a warrant (see "George W. Bush")
- Freedom from imprisonment without trial (See "Patriot Act")
- Freedom of religion (see "He's Muslim and that means he pals around with terrorists!!!!")
- The branches of the government (see Dick Cheney "The Vice President is NOT part of the Executive Branch!")
I guess that if the Republicans and neo-cons would have their way, the Constitution would consist of EXACTLY eleven words: "Anyone can bear any and all guns whenever they want to".
49 - Dan(Miller)
Glen,
Here is a proposed change to the U.S. Constitution which you may have missed. Possibly though unlikely, the reason may to bring the U.S., Venezuela and Russia into closer harmony.
Dan(Miller)
50 - Baronius
Glenn - Presidential elections have never been decided by a majority vote.
Did you read my quote from Coulter, when you raised this same point last week? It said, in essence, that it's her way of expressing her frustration with the way the majority of women vote. There's nothing unconstitutional about it.
Freedom of speech - oh, come on. You were phoning that one in. You didn't even bother to cite an inaccurate cliche for that one. I would suggest the Palin bookbanning next time.
Warrantless searches - interestingly, not in the Constitution. Freedom from imprisonment without trial is at least ambiguous in the case of non-uniformed enemy combatants, but just for kicks, I'll give you these two, because although you don't argue the points well, it's possible to do so.
What does the quote you cited have to do with freedom of religion? Is it now unconstitutional to call someone a Muslim?
Cheney is right that the VP has legislative duties. So by my charitable count, you have only five apologies to offer for your seven examples.
51 - Dan(Miller)
The Presidential oath of office having been "flubbed," President Obama took it again privately "Just to make sure" and thereby to avoid any subsequent arguments that the flubbed oath might cast doubt on his presidency. This strikes me as the right and proper thing for him to have done.
I am curious, however, about why comparable steps were not taken to obviate any lingering questions about his Constitutional qualification for the office based on status as a natural born U.S. citizen. These questions, even if a bunch of nonsense as some contend, seem almost certain to come up again and again until they are finally resolved, in a context where the questioner has standing to raise them.
It seems likely that any person directly and adversely affected by an act which only the President can Constitutionally perform will have the requisite direct interest. For example, someone tried under a Federal criminal statute signed into law by the President would seem to have a direct interest and therefore standing.
These questions could easily have been put to rest -- as were any questions arising from the flubbed oath of office -- by dealing proactively with them quite some time ago. They could still be dealt with now, proactively, before the are raised in court. The whole question may not seem important, but even facially unimportant things often take on a life of their own with unfortunate consequences.
Dan(Miller)
52 - Baronius
Dan, that reminds me of something I've always wondered about. The District of Columbia has a vote in the House. Isn't that unconstitutional? And doesn't that make all laws passed by the House invalid?
53 - Dan(Miller)
Baronius,
As I understand the situation, the District of Columbia has only a nonvoting representative in the House. Ms. Norton can vote in committee but not otherwise have a say on whether legislation is enacted. Legislation has been introduced to change this, most recently this month. It may pass, but since the District is not a State, Constitutional problems seem likely, including the one you raise.
Dan(Miller)
54 - Baronius
See, dude, this is why I ask. Thanks for the info. The Hawaii birth has been verified to the satisfaction of everyone but the craziest Paul and Hillary supporters, as far as I know.
55 - Dan(Miller)
Baronius,
The questions could probably have been answered just as easily and satisfactorily as the proper oath was retaken; no big deal. My concern is that when the questions are presented in a context where standing is not the main issue, big problems may arise. When big problems can be dealt with through very little effort, that seems to me to be the best course.I don't know what the "facts" are, but the questions are many. That they may have been asked by a bunch of raving lunatics does not mean that they have no basis. Even some folks who suffer from extreme paranoia can be in real danger. Here, as Robert Frost wrote,
Dan(Miller)
56 - Clavos
Great Frost quote, Dan(Miller)!
Thanks!
57 - Dr Dreadful
Warrantless searches - interestingly, not in the Constitution.
Wrong, Baronius. The Fourth Amendment expressly prohibits warrantless searches.
58 - Glenn Contrarian
Baronius -
I guess I must have closed the browser before I posted the preview of my reply. Too bad - its only fault was the length, for I showed your error in every case.
Elections - they are won by a majority electoral vote count...but these electoral votes are awarded (in some cases proportionally) by the MAJORITY VOTE in their respective states. (and I note you didn't want to touch the 'voter suppression' thing....)
Coulter - Her freedom of speech isn't unconstitutional...but she IS influential among conservatives, and by her own words she is against suffrage for women.
Freedom of Speech - Try Googling 'banned books' - the Wikipedia's got a decent list - and you'll see that almost ALL were banned because they offended this or that conservative 'value', whether for sexual content, patriotic, whatever. The SOLE exception I could find was 'Huckleberry Finn', which liberals tried to ban for racist content (and most liberals are AGAINST such a ban).
Warrantless searches - As Doc pointed out, it's in the Fourth Amendment...and do you really need for me to point out how the Bush administration imprisoned even an American citizen in almost total solitary confinement for nearly six years without trial? Look up Jose Padilla - and whatever you may think of his crime, he was and IS still an American citizen.
Freedom of religion - Baronius, you're not stupid. You know full well that I'm referring to how much the Republicans distrust and even hate Muslims, because they ASSUME that Islam is a violent religion. That's what my entire post was about! If the Republicans had their way, well...watch The Handmaid's Tale.
Cheney and the Executive Branch - Yes, the VEEP has legislative duties - but so does the president! Does this mean that the president is ALSO not part of the executive branch? Before Cheney made this ridiculous claim (as you well know, to hide his crimes), can you really imagine ANY Republican trying to make such a claim? And what would the Republicans have said if Al Gore had said that????
Baronius, the Republicans have screwed up big time. I recommend that you, like SJ, violate Republican dogma by standing up and saying loudly and proudly just how badly screwed up they really are...for the Republican Party can never know how to improve itself if it refuses to hear where it is wrong.
59 - Dan(Miller)
Doc,
Reasonable searches are frequently permitted without a warrant when it would be difficult, impossible or even dangerous to secure a warrant prior to the search. For example, a policeman in the course of an arrest can lawfully search the person being arrested for weapons which might be used to harm him or someone else. Stuff other than weapons found in the legitimate course of such a search (e.g, prohibited substances in the guy's pocket where a gun might have been but wasn't found) is admissible in evidence.Close but no cigar; a cigarette, perhaps. The Fourth Amendment provides,
Bottom line, some searches without a warrant are OK and some are not. Ditto some searches pursuant to a warrant. A lot depends on the circumstances.
Dan(Milelr)
60 - Dr Dreadful
Indeed, Dan, but I do wonder if that was the original intent, considering the etymology of the words reason and warrant - the latter as used today in the words warranted and unwarranted.
The use of the words unreasonable and warrant in the same run-on sentence*, without any distinction, is what makes me wonder.
* Even taking into consideration 18th Century Man's love of verbosity.
61 - Dan(Miller)
Doc,
s " in the Fourteenth Amendment appears to be a plural noun: "no warrants shall issue. . . ." rather than a verb, an adjective or even adverb. This suggests that the verb "to warrant" was not in the minds of the Intelligent Designers of the Constitution.
Original intent? What's that? Is it like original sin?
Even more seriously, the word "warrant
Dan(Miller)
62 - Ruvy
Dan, I had a lot more fun studying conract law than con law. Contract law was all about people - screwees and screwors. Con law appears to be about lofty principles - which is why it is such a con! It's all about the ugly exercise of power!
63 - Dan(Miller)
Ruvy, Contract law was all about people - screwees and screwors. So how is that different from con law?
Dan(Miller)
64 - Ruvy
Dan, did you mean "con law" as in how to con people (you know, like Con Ed) or did you mean Constitutional Law, which was the con I was referring to?
65 - Dan(Miller)
Ruvy,
I meant it the same way you did.
Dan(Miller)
66 - Ruvy
Well now that you've clarified that major legal issue, Dan, the screwors who screw people over in the name of a government have a whole pack of armed goons to back them (the government); when some Haim swindles Yankel, on the other hand, it's basically between the two of them. The funnest cases for me are the one sided contracts that corporations try to inflict on people, though. Guess there ain't that much of a difference after all....