The Constitution Is Not Perfect

And anyone who suggests that the Founders believed it to be perfect is either misinformed, stupid, or trying to push an agenda.

The easiest way to tell that the Founders did not believe the Constitution to be flawless is that they incorporated a method by which to amend the Constitution. Had they believed it to be a perfect document, then why would it necessitate amending? There are two suggestions - time is not a vacuum, which is to say that what was the case in 1789 (public stocks, slavery, women having fewer rights than gravel) is not going to necessarily hold true in 2009. This is in part why the founders wrote somewhat vaguely, to give room for interpretation.

Another piece of evidence that the Founders did not believe the Constitution to be perfect comes from the date of the Bill of Rights, also known as the First 10 Amendments. If you look carefully, or not even carefully, but at all, you will see that the Bill of Rights were not incorporated concurrently with the Constitution. In fact, one of the great hangups with the Constitution was the premise that it had no Bill of Rights. The People would not ratify the Constitution until said Bill was at least promised to be forthcoming. That the People would require something beyond what was written in the Constitution itself in order to even ratify it should supply sufficient evidence for anyone willing to think for half a second that the Founders believed the Constitution to be perfect as written.

I write this as a rant not for any reason other than it's been bugging me for some time as I have seen it written on blogs and heard it from people here and there that somehow Liberals dislike America because they believe the Constitution to be flawed. I think this idea, that questioning the omnipotence of the Constitution, is glib. But I recognize that reasonable people can come to differing opinions on what is or is not the case, and I'm certain there are several who will come here (okay, maybe 3) and read this and consider my opinion to be pure tommyrot. To them, I merely ask for proof that the Founders believed the Constitution was perfect as written, if they got this far in my late night rant.

I still hate CSI Miami

So this past Monday, my wife has CBS on. I'm ok with this, because I'm a fan of the Big Bang Theory and 2 1/2 Men - while not classics of American Comedy, they are two of the best Sitcoms out there right now. Unfortunately, after those shows end, CSI Miami comes on. CSI Miami is crap with fancy cars. The show is marked by painful one-liners delivered by stiff actors complete with choppy editing and slick (useless) special effects.

This past week, someone was shot (of course). Being that it was Miami, the person was shot in the middle of the day in a busy park or beach or something, and the question is, "who did it?" Fortunately, we have the best in the business at work here. I came in a little late, but I did see a lot of the really annoying crap. I will recap.

First, Adam Rodriguez's character is standing behind a bush, and announces that this is where the bullet came from, because he can see the bullet hole in one of the leaves. Yes. He is that freaking awesome, that he can find the ONE LEAF that has a bullet hole in it, and he does this by crouching. This guy is amazing. He didn't just search around methodically looking for clues, he walked to a spot, crouched, and saw the bullet hole. We then were treated to a stop-action rewind of the bullet being shot and going through the leaf.

But his magic doesn't stop there. Adam Rodriguez also picks up another leaf from the ground. In his clairvoyance, he actually knows how to pick up THE ONLY LEAF that the guy hiding behind the bush dripped sweat on. Never mind that it's been at least a day since the leaf fell and it's been windy, and there apparently has been no ground crew to sweep up the leaves that have fallen, the fact that he can reach down and pick up one leaf out of many and have that leaf be THE ONE that has the guy's DNA on it is nothing less than miraculous. Of course, because the DNA is old and on a plant, it's nearly impossible to extract the DNA - but wait! Eva LaRue has a fancy new machine that will destroy everything from the leaf EXCEPT the DNA. How fortunate! How timely! And how expensive would that have been for a police department to get? Would that be budgeted before, I don't know, hiring more cops? I think so! It's slicker, and allows for more useless special effects. My question, though, involves how it destroys everything but the DNA. First off - I've stood in the sun - I live in Texas, after all, and I don't regularly drip sweat in the first place. But even if I did, and even if that drip landed square on a leaf that didn't blow away, and EVEN IF the cop picked that leaf to test, wouldn't the leaf have its own DNA that would screw up the test? I'm no biologist, but I understood every living thing had DNA? But I digress.

Turns out the guy that was behind the bush didn't do it. Curses!

So they have to go back to the crime scene. Here, they do some stop motion recreation of the scene, with the victim being shot and stopped as he starts to fall. Adam Rodriguez and Emily Procter then start deducing. And they deduce the hell out of this! First, they determine that the shot came from (I think they said) about 150 yards. Then they look and see a possible spot for the shooter to shoot from. But they'd already checked that and saw no GSR (gunshot residue). So Emily Procter then figures out how fast the wind was blowing that day at that time by guessing (seriously), and also remembers which direction the wind was coming from, even though she was not there when the shot was fired, and THEN is able to calculate how much the bullet (actually drawing the curve in the air, with actual dotted lines for us to follow along) would have curved due to the wind so that the shooter would have hit the victim, all in her head. So they go to the boat, which fortunately had its deck closed for repairs, and found GSR, proving that the whole ship is full of idiots who didn't see a guy carrying a 30.06 running around the deck. They also find some jelly-iodine that the hospitals use to treat burn victims (another special effect here). This leads them to the hospital, where their perpetrator has been recovering from burns (from a suicide pact because he and his girlfriend got too much debt - he shot the loan agent, because what else could he do? It wasn't their fault they signed the loans, after all), meaning that not only does the hospital have such lax care that they allowed him to leave without checking as to his whereabouts, but that even though he's too stupid to manage money or stay in college, is somehow equipped with sniper skills to know precisely how much to compensate for the wind to pull off a head shot from over 150 yards.

And I know people who live for this show, because of how well these people solve the problems.

Honoring Those Who Served

There are at least three distinct differences between President Bush and Sgt. Patrick Stewart (deceased). First, Patrick Stewart actually went overseas and fought in a war. Second, Patrick Stewart was killed in action, and third, Patrick Stewart was a Wiccan.

It's the last part of that situation that President Bush apparently has issue with, as did the Veteran's Administration. You see, the VA apparently did not want to put the inverted pentagram on Stewart's headstone in the VA cemetary in Reno, because they did not consider Wicca to be a "real" religion. President Bush has spoken out against Wicca in the past. That's ok. President Bush is entitled to his thoughts on the Wiccan religion. But when he acts on that prejudice, that's where I have a problem:

On Tuesday, following an address to the American Legion's national convention in Reno, [President] Bush met with norhtern Nevada family members of soldiers who have perished in combat. Roberta Stewart, whose husband, Sgt. Patrick Stewart was killed in combat in Afghanistan, was not invited, even though other relatives of Sgt. Stewart were.

The article notes that Sgt. Stewart's parents and brother were invited to meet with the President, but not his widow. As if to rub salt in the wound, the President did invite the widow of a fellow servicemember who perished in the same Chinook Helicopter as Sgt. Stewart.

All I can say is shame on the President. It was bad enough when the VA attempted to deny this veteran's religious choice the same respect it does others, but when the leader of the nation acts as though a woman who stood up for the rights of ALL servicemen and women on her soldier husband's behalf is somehow deserving of a one-finger salute, then that shows a fundamental flaw in how he approaches religion and religious freedom. This was wrong, and President Bush owes her a very public and very personal apology.

One State, Under God, Buddha, Allah, Vishnu, et al.

What is it about fundamental Christians that they are so weak in their faith that they feel it necessary to try to work religion into every aspect of everybody's life? Is their grasp in their faith so tenuous that, like an alcoholic or a smoker, they need to encourage others to share in their acts?

Texas has a law now that requires students who attend public schools to recite the Texas Pledge (first off, how many states even HAVE their own Pledge of Allegiance: 4 besides Texas) with 4 extra words: One State, Under God. Apparently, this is to remind our students that our state is one state, under God. I don't understand the need for this, other than to pander to the religious base. But, while this may be considered a Lemon Test violation of the First Amendment (Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 1971), it is what follows next in the Houston Chronicle article linked above that looks more clearly to violate the First Amendment.

According to the article, the students are not *required* to recite those four extra words. Rather, students who object to saying the pledge or making the reference to God can bring a written note from home excusing them from participating. In other words, what this law does is compel the invocation of God by all students in Texas, be they Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Wiccan, Zoroastrian, or whatever. And in order to not participate, what they must do is bring attention to themselves by presenting a written waiver from home. This is nothing short of state sponsored coercion of a religion more on all students in Texas, compelling them to stay in line and follow the status quo, lest the students be alienated for thinking differently. For those who are unaware, State Sponsored Coercion of religion in public schools is also unconstitutional under the Coercion Test (from Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577, 1992).

If one disputes the intent of the law, one need just listen to the statement of State Representative Debbie Riddle, who claims it had always bothered hoer that God was omitted in the state's pledge: "Personally, I felt like the Texas pledge had a big old hole in it, and it occurred to me, 'You know what? We need to fix that. Our pledge is perfectly OK like it is with the exception of acknowledging that just as we are one nation under God, we are one state under God as well." Read differently, what Ms. Riddle says, essentially, is, "I am a Christian, and I want everyone here to follow what I hold dear and do what I want to do." This is not representative of the concept of a representative democracy, and it surely does nothing to look out for the minority from the oppression of majority.

This law was unnecessary. The phrase was unnecessary, and the compelling nature of the phrase does little more than lead toward situations not unlike Sante Fe ISD v. Doe, which resulted in a very real witch hunt for the (use your own expletive here) who objected to the recitation of a prayer at school events. While those individuals may very well have lynched the heathen who disagreed with their God, it's unlikely that objections to the new phrase in the Pledge would do so. Instead, I think we'll see a "kinder, gentler" form of hatred manifesting itself against these children who dare to believe differently.

Fair and Balanced

I was watching some political talking heads program on Fox this morning. The show itself was all right, I didn't it really slanted right as far as many think, except for one part. One guy, in discussing the commutation of the Libby sentence, in the same breath, connected it with the terrorist attacks in London and suggested a justification for the warrantless wiretaps, inviting a debate.

I have a piece to say on that issue, being, 1. the Fourth Amendment still exists, 2. there is a legitimate means for the Executive to obtain warrants with little to no probable cause (indeed the FISA courts are, by law, not allowed to gauge the substance of the FISA warrant applications, rather can only check to see if there are no procedural irregularities), and 3. the President has yet to show that using FISA, which allows for warrants AFTER THE FACT is unduly burdensome to such a point that it would justify violating the Supreme Law of the Land, other than to say "trust us."

I'm sorry, but the President, has burned through all his trust; there needs to be some substance to support it. Referring to all acts of insurgency as "Al Qaeda" without any evidence connecting them to Al Qaeda is not the way to do it. The attacks in London are evidence that wiretapping can be used to limit potential threats, but it does not suggest that I need to forfeit my right to be free from unreasonable governmental intrusion. And to the guy on Fox (I don't check any of their names), if you are so sold on winning the war on terror, enlist. Do your part. Don't tell me what rights I need to give up or defend against having stripped from me.

Sorry, I'm tired and grumpy.

"I respect the jury's verdict"

That's what the Decider said. Then he said, "But I have concluded that the prison sentence given to Mr. Libby is excessive. Therefore, I am commuting the portion of Mr. Libby's sentence that required him to spend thirty months in prison."

Let's rephrase that. What the President said, in essence, is "While I know that the Jury found the defendant guilty, I don't think he should go to prison, because he's my VP's former aide. But, since I'm going to get too much backlash if I pardon him, I'm just going to see to it that he doesn't go to jail. In other words, he's not going to be fully punished for breaking the law."

So, it's easy to see that he respects the jury's decision, so much so that he's going to reverse part their decision. Now, he's not getting off scot-free. He does still have probation, and a $250,000 fine. And let's not forget the damage to his reputation, and professional work in the legal community (why not keep him off the bar altogether?) But, the meat of the punishment is the prison sentence, and to suggest otherwise is nothing short of blowing smoke. What this act by the President does, in essence, is show that he feels his administration is not subject to the checks and balances provided for by the Constitution, and that the People have no say in how his office is governed. "I respect their decision. I considered their decision. They are wrong. Only I know the right punishment." The Decider, indeed. By the people, for the people be damned, this is his show, and he wants to make sure EVERYONE knows it. I for one am disgusted at this. Shame on President Bush.

CROSS POST: Check out Just Wondering's post on Vim and Vinegar - she has another view on this, and is equally unhappy with the result.

Just a Reminder

CSI Miami is the worst show on television.

Every now and then I try to watch an episode, in the hopes that maybe someone who knows how to write a script, or understand the substantial unlikelihood of so much of the evidence they uncover, might have gotten hired.

Then I watch it for a few minutes and realize how wrong I am.

David Caruso cannot act.
The rest of the characters pose and grin and we are supposed to believe that they are superintelligent, smooth characters.

This past episode, I happened to tune in while Caruso and one of the brain-dead grinners were interviewing a baseball player who was hispanic. The show decided to subtitle the guy's dialog for us. This is a nice idea - if the guy was speaking spanish, or perhaps a really freaking thick brogue that nobody could understand unless they were from the same Scottish highland village. But this guy was speaking English, with a slight hispanic accent. Putting subtitles here is not cool - it's insulting to the viewer.

Maybe one of these days I'll catch on and stop watching this insult to brain cells altogether. Perhaps I'll be even luckier, and the idiots who tune in for the glitz and glamor of Forensics specialists driving in Hummers to crime scenes where the lead actor can dramatically pull off his glasses and make some corny one-liner to the vacuous character mugging for the camera next to him will realize that there's absolutely no substance to this show, and that there's maybe 20 minutes of story packed into an hour with completely unnecessary and repetitive special effects footage to flesh it out, and quit watching the show - and I'll be saved.

But I won't hold my breath. There are too many stupid people in the world who live for crap like this.

Of the People, For the People...

Senate Republicans blocked a no-confidence vote headed by Senate Democrats today. The vote would have had no actual authority, however, it would have served to further pave the road towards impeachment of the Attorney General.

While I understand why the Democrats tried to push this forward, I think it was a waste of time from the start. That said, it did provide yet another instance of President Bush displaying how he feels about the concepts of coequal branches of one government. Commenting on the blocked vote, the President said, "[t]hey can have their votes of no confidence, but it's not going to make the determination about who serves in my government."

I beg you pardon, Mr. Bush, but it's not *your* government. You are a president, not a dictator, emperor, king, shah, deity, or other incarnation of a totalitarian government. You have shown for the past six years that you believe that your way is the only way, and that the terms compromise and diplomacy don't ring in your ears. But this is not your government. This is our government, and we dislike your pouting demeanor when people don't acquiesce to your demands. We don't like that you expect supplication from those for whom you work. And we find it deplorable that you still seem to believe that three co-equal branches means your word rules and everyone else should fall in line behind you.

Mr. President, start acting like a president, like a representative, and quit acting like a pissy, snotty, spoiled brat.

Maintenance

Our guest bathroom toilet leaks. It's been leaking for quite some time now. I put in a repair request twelve days ago.

The refrigerator is not refrigerating. The freezer is not freezing. The air conditioner is not conditioning. We put the work orders in for these yesterday, after which the main office said they'd send someone out "today." Nobody came.

So I went back today and requested they come and fix our air conditioning (it's been in the 80s the last few days), and that they come and fix our refrigerator, lest we lose some $35 in meat and a bunch in other foods. They apologized for not sending someone out yesterday, and that the guy was there, and they'd send him "right over." I said great, I'd be gone for a little bit, but I'd be right home.

I went to the grocery store - we have little food that's not in the freezer, and we were out of milk; I wanted some ready for when the fridge would be repaired so the kids could have breakfast.

I got back from the grocery store, and as I'm bringing in the last of the groceries (Coca-cola - it's a necessity), a maintenance guy shows up. "I have a work order for your toilet, it's leaking?" "Yes, but please tell me you're also here for the refrigerator and A/C." "Sorry, no."

I was happy, let me tell you.

Then the guy offered to look at the refrigerator - thank goodness - nice guy.
Then, while he was working on that, about 20 minutes later, the other maintenance guy shows up, and he fixes the A/C. So now I have a working A/C, a toilet that still runs, but doesn't leak, and a refrigerator that's about to be put back together, hopefully defrosted and working right.

And I'm only halfway through my case for Tuesday, for which I must prepare a bench brief, which I don't even know what it is, let alone how to draft one. Fun fun fun, but I have no T-bird to take away.

That Darn MSM

They're attacking the Republicans again. This time, the report announces that Newt Gingrich, the man who led the charge against Clinton during his impeachment for lying about an extramarital affair, was actually carrying on an extramarital affair at the time.

Except, wait - Newt admitted to the affair. So this wasn't undercover MSM work trying to discredit a prominent republican for daring to be republican. And hold on - he admitted to the affair to James Dobson, who, last I checked was nowhere near the MSM.

But here's the strange thing, so me. Dobson didn't vilify Gingrich for failing to obey the 10 commandments, at least, the Methodist version, which says "Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery." That doesn't seem to be a very pro-family action.

I don't presume for a moment that Gingrich and Clinton are the only politicians who have had affairs. I find it interesting that the affair was such a big deal to this hypocrite, which now suggests that it was little more than political posturing, which is exactly what the Neocons are now pleading for the democrats to not do.

I don't like the democrats, and I would not vote for any of them, except maybe a Richardson/Obama ticket, but stuff like this makes me want to cast an opposition vote just to keep the republicans out of office. Still, I'm probably going to vote Libertarian again.

Pet Peeve

One thing that continuously gets my goat (Besides goat rustlers) are groups of 2 or three people who insist on walking side by side, slow as molasses, oblivious to the fact that there are several people in the hall, or on the sidewalk, or wherever these people are gabbing, trying to get by them. I'm not saying that we are more important than you, but your conversation is certainly not more important than free flow of traffic. Make a hole; let people move, darnit.

Are there any other goat-getters out there?

Memo to Self

I don't like writing memos for class. They are difficult for me to focus on for any great length of time, and I get frustrated because what I want to say in 7 words I have to spread out over nearly 7 pages.

Anyway, I finished my memo last night at about 10:30, and I wasn't happy with it, but I was done with it.

Then I read for Criminal Trial Advocacy, where I play a lawyer tomorrow (again) with my partner and then maybe I'll get to sleep a little, and get over my cold.

Stupid Memo

It's for a 2-hour class. I spent 2 hours on it Friday, 4 hours yesterday, and so far, 5 hours today, and I'm not even halfway through.

This is frustrating. Even more so because it only goes towards part of my class participation, which is only 15% of my total grade. Why am I so concerned about this, and why can't I get myself to finish it?

Why should this matter?

I don't care for Mitt Romney. I don't think he would make a good president. I think he's polarizing. I think he played both sides of the gun issue.

But all of my opinions are based on my impression of Mitt Romney, not Mitt Romney's Great- or Great-great grandfathers. Seriously, I could give a crap if his great grandfather had five wives. That does not mean that Mitt supports polygamy; in fact, he has gone on the record as being against it. He doesn't practice it. I don't see how what his ancestors did has any bearing on his qualifications to lead this nation. In my mind, this is as asinine as it would be for an article to come out saying "so and so, a candidate for the presidency, has in his (or her) family tree members who owned slaves. Candidate, however, has spoken out against slavery." It would be seen as stupid, which it should.

As idiotic as this article's topic is, I'd almost be willing to believe that the Romney camp had it released to garner airtime to attack its relevancy in his campaign for president, to get people talking about him, in his defense, to garner support... almost.

We fear change

We're getting new Dollar Coins. And apparently, we still don't like them. Why? Because.

I honestly have no idea why we are so reluctant to use dollar coins. They cost less and last longer than dollar bills; they don't tear up; they are almost always going to be accepted in vending machines (once we change the vending machine coin slots)...

Perhaps the problem is that Canadians have been using them for years already. God knows we can't ever do anything that appears to be following what someone else does - it's an affront to our sovereignty. Kyoto? Hell no. Trade Unions? Hell no. UN? Screw them; Americans know best what's best for the world. But back to the Canadian dollar coins... why should we do what Canadians do? They negotiated NAFTA provisions that protect Canadian culture, yet did nothing to ensure the protection of our culture. What culture do Canadians have, anyway? Why should we bother copying something from a nation that is so afraid of getting real culture that they negotiated accords keeping our culture from them? We shouldn't.

But seriously, is there really any REAL reason for rejecting dollar coins?