They're Crazy, and They're Voting

In a spring edition, Bloomberg Businessweek features a story in which a bio is included of a Tea Party member who "recovered from a stroke with Medicaid assistance," but who nevertheless, with a straight face advocates "to repeal [Obama's] health-care law," complaining the Obama's plan is "really no longer insurance, it's a welfare kind of thing." Christina Lindblad, et al, The Patients: In their Own Words, Bloomberg Newsweek, Mar. 26, 2012, at B8.

Paul Krugman recounts a similar sort of thing during the 2009 Tea Party town-hall invasion:

"There was a telling incident at a town hall held by Representative Gene Green, D-Tex. An activist turned to his fellow attendees and asked if they 'oppose any form of socialized or government-run health care.' Nearly all did. Then Representative Green asked how many of those present were on Medicare. Almost half raised their hands."

Paul Krugman, The Town Hall Mob, The New York Times, Aug. 7, 2009, at A19. How do you deal with unwitting hypocrites?

Time vs. Money

“Time spent is different from money paid; recovery of the latter may be problematic, but recovery of the former is impossible.” Braden v. Downey, 811 S.W.2d 922, 930 (Tex. 1991).

Alienable Rights in the Bible

Apparently, the Old Testament doesn't believe in the inalienability of the rights to life and liberty. An “inalienable right” is a right that “cannot be bartered away, or given away, or taken away except in punishment of crime.” Butchers’ Union Slaughter-House and Live-Stock Landing Co. v. Crescent City Co., 111 U.S. 746, 756-57 (1884) (Field, J concurring). In Leviticus, Moses wrote that Israelites could take foreign slaves, and that the slaves would descend as property. He also wrote that an Israelite could sell him- or herself into slavery, but could redeem their freedom at certain times.

“If any of your fellow Israelites become poor and sell themselves to you, do not make them work as slaves. They are to be treated as hired workers or temporary residents among you; they are to work for you until the Year of Jubilee. Then they and their children are to be released, and they will go back to their own clans and to the property of their ancestors. Because the Israelites are my servants, whom I brought out of Egypt, they must not be sold as slaves. Do not rule over them ruthlessly, but fear your God. Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly. If a foreigner residing among you becomes rich and any of your fellow Israelites become poor and sell themselves to the foreigner or to a member of the foreigner’s clan, they retain the right of redemption after they have sold themselves.” 

Leviticus 25:39-48.

Projection Isn't Always Fair; It Can Be Ethnocentrism

I found these interesting words from Charles Taylor, in an article published in response to Taylor's recent conviction by some Western, multinational tribunal:

"After taking us to task at length, Taylor tried a more personable approach. He insisted we should not impose our worldview on Africa, saying, 'You see, my brother, political feuds border on hatred in Liberia. You cannot expect First World standards. Things are just different; everyone wants power. It is not like the politics you know.' Smiling, he continued: 'I live well and have no regrets. I am a good Christian. I lived and studied in Boston. All these men sitting around you have advanced degrees, most of them from good universities in the United States. But a politician from America could not survive in Africa no more than I could survive in Alaska.'"

Biblical Wisdom

"A soft answer turneth away wrath: but grievous words stir up anger." Proverbs 15:1 (King James Version).

Process Confers Legitimacy

In re: Obama embraces Islam, The Washington Times, Apr. 25, 2012.

To answer your question, yes, political groups are "legitimized simply by participating in the political process [i.e., by getting elected]." It's a fundamental notion here in representative government.

Preposterous Forms Vindicated

"Citation by publication is not a favored method of service of process because it is the least calculated to notify the defendant of the pendency of a judicial action,"Graves v. Graves, 916 S.W.2d 65, 68 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1996, no writ) (citing Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 313-315 (1950)), and it is "a constitutionally permissible form of notice where there are no other means available to put on notice a defendant who cannot be found." In re AY, 16 S.W.3d 387, 389 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2000, no pet.) (also citing Mullane).

I actually found a few examples of cases where the defendants received notice by way of citation by publication. See Bavousett v. Bradshaw, 332 S.W.2d 155, 159 (Tex. Civ. App.—Amarillo 1959, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Mathis v. Coker, No. 10-05-00437-CV, n. 2 (Tex. App.—Waco 2007, no writ).

More on Free Speech, but with Limitations

I found this interesting little intersection between Robert's Rules of Order and freedom of speech and assembly in constitutional law:

“A society has the right to determine who may be present at its meeting and to control its hall while meetings are in progress. * * * [A]ll members have the right to attend [with certain exceptions]. Nonmembers on the other hand…can be excluded at any time from part or all of a metting of a society, or from all of its meetings. * * * All persons present at a meeting have an obligation to obey the legitimate orders of the presiding officer.”

RONR (10^th ed.), § 61, p. 625, ll. 11-30.

“With this framework, we agree with the District Court that summary judgment against David Eichenlaub on his restraint of speech and petition claims was appropriate. The record of the September 14, 1999 meeting discloses that he was repetitive and truculent, and that he repeatedly interrupted the chairman of the meeting. Restricting such behavior is the sort of time, place, and manner regulation that passes muster under the most stringent scrutiny for a public forum. Indeed, for the presiding officer of a public meeting to allow a speaker to try to hijack the proceedings, or to filibuster them, would impinge on the First Amendment rights of other would-be participants. We have no difficulty sustaining the decision to remove [the plaintiff] on that basis.”

Eichenlaub v. Township of Indiana, 385 F.3d 274, 281 (3^rd Cir. 2004) (construing  U.S. Const., amend. I); see also Vacca v. Barletta, 933 F.2d 31 (1^st Cir. 1991).

Occupy, but with Limitations

Yes, you can Occupy—but only at or in reasonable times places, and manners, as prescribed by local government.

"Even liberty itself, the greatest of all rights, is not unrestricted license to act according to one's own will. It is only freedom from restrain under conditions essential to the equal enjoyment of the same right by others. It is then liberty regulated by law."

Crowley v. Christensen, 137 U.S. 86, 89-90 (1890).

"A State or municipality may protect individual privacy by enacting reasonable time, place, and manner regulations applicable to all speech irrespective of content."

Erznoznik v. Jacksonville, 422 U.S. 205, 209 (1975).

"People assemble in public places not only to speak or to take action, but also to listen, observe, and learn; indeed they may 'assemble for any lawful purpose,' subject to the traditional time, place, and manner restrictions."

Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555, 578 (1980)

Omnibus Not Necessary

That a solution is not comprehensive is not an argument against its adoption: 

It is a "familiar principl[e]" that a "'statute is not invalid under the Constitution because it might have gone farther than it did,' that a legislature need not 'strike at all evils at the same time,' and that 'reform may take one step at a time, addressing itself to the phase of the problem which seems most acute to the legislative mind.'"

New Orleans v. Dukes, 427 U.S. 297, 305 (1976) (quoting Katzenbach v. Morgan, 384 U.S. 641, 657 (1976)).

Madison and Moody

"CONSTANT VIGILANCE!"—Alastor "Mad Eye" Moody, from J.K. Rowling, Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire 213 (Arthur A. Levine Books 2000).

"[I]t is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. We hold this prudent jealousy to be the first duty of Citizens, and one of the noblest characteristics of the late Revolution. The free men of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entangled the question in precedents. They saw all the consequences in the principle, and they avoided the consequences by denying the principle. We revere this lesson too much soon to forget it." 

James Madison, Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments (1785), reprinted in 2 Writings of James Madison (Gaillard Hunt ed. New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1900).

The Civic Importance of the Bible

In 1983, President Ronald Reagan proclaimed that year to the Year of the Bible. This is admittedly a cheesy proclamation. Nevertheless, the text of the proclamation and the rationale behind it say some true things. I quote here in pertinent part, as follows:

“Of the many influences that have shaped the United States of America into a distinctive Nation and people, none may be said to be more fundamental and enduring than the Bible.
Deep religious beliefs stemming from the Old and New Testaments of the Bible inspired many of the early settlers of our country, providing them with the strength, character, convictions, and faith necessary to withstand great hardship and danger in this new and rugged land. These shared beliefs helped forge a sense of common purpose among the widely dispersed colonies—a sense of community which laid the foundation for the spirit of nationhood that was to develop in later decades.
The Bible and its teachings helped form the basis for the Founding Fathers’ abiding belief in the inalienable rights of the individual, rights which they found implicit in the Bible’s teachings of the inherent worth and dignity of each individual. This same sense of man patterned the convictions of those who framed the English system of law inherited by our own Nation, as well as the ideals set forth in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.”

Crockett v. Sorenson, 568 F.Supp. 1422, 1428 n. 5 (W.D.Va. 1983) (Kiser, J).

Lawyers Predominate in Government

"Lawyers made up majorities of the Continental Congress, the signers of the Declaration of Independence, and the Framers of the Constitution." Anastasoff v. United States, 223 F.3d 898, 900 n. 4 (8^th Cir. 2000).

"The prevalence of lawyers in America’s ruling elite (spotted by a Frenchman, Alexis de Tocqueville, in the 1830s) is stronger than ever. Mr Obama went to Harvard Law School (1988-91); his cabinet contains Hillary Clinton (Yale Law, 1969-73) as secretary of state, Eric Holder (Columbia Law, 1973-76) as attorney-general, Joe Biden (Syracuse University law school, 1965-68) as vice-president and Leon Panetta (Santa Clara University law school, 1960-63) as director of the CIA [now, SECDEF]. That’s the tip of the iceberg. Over half of America’s senators practised law.* * *In democracies, lawyers dominate."

Selection bias in politics: There was a lawyer, an engineer and a politician..., The Economist, Apr. 16, 2009.

Secrecy and Diplomacy

In re: Scott Shane and Andrew W. Lehren, Leaked Cables Offer Raw Look at U.S. Diplomacy, New York Times, Nov. 29, 2010, at A1; Daniel Halper, Obama to Russia: ‘After My Election I Have More Flexibility’, Weekly Standard, Mar. 26, 2012.

"The nature of foreign negotiations requires caution, and their success must often depend on secrecy; and even when brought to a conclusion a full disclosure of all the measures, demands, or eventual concessions which may have been proposed or contemplated would be extremely impolitic; for this might have a pernicious influence on future negotiations, or produce immediate inconveniences, perhaps danger and mischief, in relation to other powers."

George Washington, quoted in United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp., 299 U.S. 304, 320-21 (1936).